The Social Media Tug of War
Which side are you on?
You know what I mean. There’s two distinct camps. There’s the marketing purists who grab claim to social media like it was an Oscars goodie bag. And then there’s the specialists, struggling to wrest away the social media prize, hoping to get out from under stuffy marketing’s death grip once and for all.
You see it all over the internet. A constant tug of war. Who owns social media? Who should be managing social media? Is social media a part of public relations? Or is it account planning? Or maybe it’s a broadcast medium? Or maybe it’s just some trick cooked up by bored Gen Y’ers as a way to look busy at their desk when they can’t be texting on their phones.
Lately I’ve come across some comments and articles that question whether marketing and branding are dead, and ask where social media belongs in the grand scheme of things.
What is Social Media?
In Social Media: So Easy a Caveman Can Do It I originally referred to social media as a marketing discipline, I think it’s probably more accurate to call it a function within the discipline of marketing. This establishes a hierarchy. Social media is not a discipline unto itself. It will always be inextricably linked to marketing because:
The global objective of social media is the exact same as marketing: Selling.
To directly sell, to assist a sale, or to influence sales. Before, during, and after. The ultimate purpose, when in the context of any sort of brand communication, is to sell. Not in a blatant, leisure suit kind of way. But in a genuine, connecting sort of way.
Whether it’s a national CPG brand attempting to build a connection to current and potential customers, or a job hunter using social media to sell their value to future employers. Or Tila Tequila selling her persona on MySpace for social currency. Social media is a tool for selling. It’s an innovative method to sell an idea, a connection, a product, a person, a belief. Or even just to sell trust and affinity.
Yeah, I hate the word “sell.” It feels so anti-social media. But that’s the authentic reality.
Some social media practitioners still argue that social media is separate from marketing. Mostly because marketing in a lot of companies has sucked for awhile and SM practitioners feel that marketing supervision cramps their style. But given the same global objective, would it make sense for a company to have two separate departments trying to achieve the same goal, with two different and equal leaders? That would be the equivalent of hiring two CEOs. If one is doing their job right, the other is redundant at best, a divisive force at worst. Marketing gets a bad rap as it is. The last thing the industry needs is a tug of war between two internal factions that basically agree on the same ultimate goal, but just want to battle for control and the satisfaction of being “right.”
Sounds a little like a holy war. Or the WWF. Neither of which ever really ends all that well.
Is Marketing Dead?
Traditional marketing has been a one-way communication, and social media has opened the gates to real two-way communication. If a marketer believes they can continue to send messages out into the ether in hopes that consumers will follow like lemmings, they’re missing the value of social media. And they’re missing the evolution of marketing. Marketing is not dead. It’s just in the process of changing. Social media doesn’t make marketing irrelevant. It forces marketing to dynamically change, to become more relevant, effective, and responsive. Social media gives marketing the opportunity to become more sophisticated, powerful, dynamic, and subtle. It helps marketing become what it was meant to be. To say marketing is dead in an attempt to elevate social media is like sawing off an arm of a still breathing body before hammering the nails in the coffin. Is marketing dead? No. But the traditional marketer that doesn’t evolve quickly is an endangered species for sure.
Is Branding Dead?
To assume branding no longer has a function because the consumer has control of the brand message through social media assumes that branding is linear. When done correctly, branding is multi-dimensional, powerful, and connective on multiple levels. To believe that branding is dead is to believe that a company can no longer steer its own ship. Or communicate proactively with the customer. Because that’s what branding is about. Communication. Branding isn’t dead. It’s more alive than ever. It’s so alive that it just had its peanut butter collide with social media’s chocolate. Something new, interesting, and enduring has been born. A more responsive form of branding.
Is Social Media a Broadcast Medium?
Social media is both marketing and medium. The confusion has to do with its multiple purposes and one generalized name. It would be a lot clearer to everyone if “social media” referred to the points of consumer contact (the medium), and “social marketing” was used to refer to the practice of social media marketing development (marketing). But as a community, we haven’t yet semantically clarified the two.
Whose Responsibility is Social Media?
The execution of social marketing belongs to everyone. To the Marketing Director. To the Public Relations Specialist. To the CEO, the janitor, and the interns. To your customers. To your best friends. And yes, even to your nemesis. Ultimately everyone connected to your brand in any way is going to be participating in social media on behalf of your brand. Whether you authorize it or not.
That’s why it’s particularly important to have social media managed by someone who understands marketing, branding, and corporate strategy, as well as emerging media. It’s not just about knowing how to engage a community online, it’s also about having the ability to spread the brand gospel throughout the entire organization and develop an inclusive culture that encourages employees to be advocates for the brand. So that everyone understands what’s going on and can more effectively communicate it everywhere they go, and with whomever they engage. Whether it’s on Facebook or in the produce section of Whole Foods.
This is the way it should have been done before social media and it’s still the way to do it.
The greatest companies have actually been practicing it for a long time and have healthy brands because of it. Whenever I’m asked about my favorite brands, I always bring up Herb Kelleher and Southwest Airlines. There’s a brand that got social media before social media got the internet. Southwest Airlines is an incredible example of why marketing and branding are still alive and well, and will flourish with social media. At the core of brand communication, whether it’s on Twitter or in the aisle of an airplane, is connection at an honest level that inspires the customer to become an evangelist.
Southwest Airlines proved you don’t need Facebook plug-ins or iPhone apps to build a brand. You just need human connection. Consistent and authentic.
So now that we have tons of new tools that marketers didn’t have 10 or 20 years ago, doesn’t mean it’s time to divide the marketing community into the technologically advanced and the traditional. Everyone who has the opportunity within a company to be a unifying force should aim to strengthen the marketing function, instead of looking for ways to prove that traditional marketing is no longer relevant.
Instead of the social media tug of war, it’s time for marketing and social media to join the same team. Be a supportive force in the evolution of marketing as a whole, and focus not on the fight, but on propelling brands forward.
Everyone is here for the same goal. The rope will move a lot easier if we’re all pulling it from the same side.
Hi Michelle. Too smart as always.
Coming from the nonprofit perspective, I have to say that marketing and social media aren't about selling, they're about influencing: getting you to buy into my cause, help me spread the word, support it with your time and money, change your personal behavior in response to my efforts, etc.
There also are non-sales objectives in business that are extremely well-served by social media, so I guess I don't entirely agree with your global objective. If social media enables me to position my organization as a superior place of employment and results in my attracting a higher quality of applicant, is this sales? At some level everything is sales, but I prefer the term "influence" because it can include all the potential outcomes we seek through marketing that don't necessarily fit under the sales heading.
Re marketing and branding, the suggestion that either is dead is silly. As you point out, it's the nature of the relationship between organization and stakeholder that's changed, and so the dynamics of who controls what have been altered. There a lot less dictating going on and a whole lot more collaboration in shaping who my organization is and what value it offers to the marketplace.
Hi Dan, I have to admit when I was writing the post I just knew the word "selling" was going to get some responses!
When I say "marketing" I don't necessarily mean ringing a cash register. Marketing is an aggregate of functions designed to sell a service, product, participation, opinion, or concept. Tangible or intangible.
Anything we engage in with the expectation of persuasion and influence, targeted response, or desired result is selling (or marketing) in some form or another. If a non-profit is soliciting donations, the organization must first "solicit" the value of the program to influence donors. If a non-profit is engaging in an awareness campaign (and not actively seeking donations) it is attempting to "sell" the importance of the issue to influence participation. That's still marketing. But yes, I do like the word influence.
As far as the relationship of social media within the organization, the key is to bring marketing and social media together, rather than have a social media person off doing their own thing without the influence and supervision of whoever is responsible for setting marketing objectives and strategies. In small organizations it may all be the same person, but in larger ones it's critical that everyone works under consistent objectives and strategies.
I realize the structure or goals of certain types of companies might be different. But I think in most organizations there will typically be one set of global objectives, and then another set of marketing objectives. Social media is just one tool to help achieve those objectives. It all comes together more cohesively when efforts are coordinated.
Like Dan, I come at this from a background of working in nonprofits (and, now, with a branding firm that works with a lot of nonprofits):
Marketing is about moving people closer to the organization, in service of achieving business goals. If you're a nonprofit, that can be "selling" per se (tickets), or it can be advocacy, or donations.
The real disconnect comes from the well-entrenched belief that Marketing (or at least the function as we've come to know it) is somehow separate and distinct from business strategy. To me, it is, was, and always has been inseparable. Taken that way, then, social media is as indispensable–to all departments, functions, and employees–as the telephone. Everyone needs to use it, but it's not the only way business gets done.
Since Marketers are, ideally, professional communicators, they function best as resources on how to shape and guide messages based on desired outcomes and intended audiences. The LEAST effective use of good marketing folks are as middlemen, because their expertise is communication, not content.
Just like you don't charge the Marketing Department to answer every phone that rings in your company, it's unrealistic to expect Marketing to answer the social media bell for everyone in an organization.
Hi Tamsen, you're absolutely right about business strategy being inseparable from marketing. It's refreshing to hear marketing people want to talk business strategy. It demonstrates that they see the whole picture. I'm glad you brought this up.
I agree with you on the fact that social media is becoming as indispensable as the phone, and that everyone in an organization uses it. But I see it as Marketing's role to indoctrinate the rest of the company on the right way to use it and ensure everyone is on-brand and on-strategy in their communication. Definitely there will be all types of marketing specialists within the company executing tactics at the "middleman" level as you say (as well as non-marketing employees engaging in social media). It's just that their efforts should all be coordinated within the boundaries of the organization's marketing objectives. Which naturally falls to Marketing to lead and direct.
The debate could be moot, though. In the future, this may end up on the shoulders of the Chief Strategy Officer (which I believe is just a really strong Chief Marketing Officer with business and operational vision. Or a swap of those.) The marketing function is growing and its execution is becoming more intertwined with every other department. Which is reinforced by your point that everyone within the organization is engaging in social media.
Ultimately, whether it's a CMO or a CSO, there needs to be someone with global organizational vision to direct, monitor, and gauge the efficacy of marketing strategies and tactics, which include social media. For most structured organizations that naturally falls to the Marketing Director or Chief Marketing Officer. To have a social media position that operates independently of that umbrella could actually be counter-productive.
Well done, Michelle. Also from the nonprofit sector, I especially latched onto "Is Marketing Dead?" and "Whose Responsibility Is Social Media?"
Marketing 101 has always preached the aspect of two-way dynamics… "marketing is not just concerned with communicating with publics, but most important, listening to publics." Social media significantly ramps up the significance of two-way communication and our ability to use it as a marketing tool.
Concerning responsibility, it is incumbent upon institutions to begin to educate both internal and external publics as to the advantages (and pitfalls) of social media in branding the institution. Encourage their voices to be heard in order to become part of the conversation.
It sort of bothers me that social media is still viewed as just a marketing/PR function and that we need someone to “manage” it. Does anyone manage how people use the telephone, or email in a company? Does anyone review all paper mail before it goes out? No. Everybody uses and manages those communication modes in whatever way is appropriate or applicable to their function. The same should be true of social media. It's not just marketing and it never has been. It's customer service, it's product development, it's recruiting, it's vendor relationships, supply chain management, intra-company communications. Seeing social media through just a marketing lens really does it a disservice.
I hear you, Joe. When I wrote this post almost a year ago, social media was at a place where a lot of traditional PR practitioners were still trying to keep it under the bushel so to speak. Marketing management was seeing the reach and impact and the struggle ensued. Now, customer relationship management has entered the picture and the customer service department is using it. (And as you said, many other departments.) There's still a tug of war to some degree, but it's becoming clearer that social media can be leveraged throughout an organization and not limited to marketing. At this moment in social media's evolution, it still needs the guidance of a brand lead that can inspire the entire company to live the brand and reflect it in all social media contact.
You're right. No one should own it. But ultimately, not looking at it through a marketing lens is detrimental to the longevity of the brand. Everyone should be able to use social media and communicate in it, but if you're doing it on behalf of a company, interactions and engagement should be driven by the brand promise and exercised with professional care. The way businesses are structured, the marketing department is still ideally equipped to supervise and empower (not necessarily control or restrict) social media activity.